Starship Asterisk*

Fermi Telescope Caps First Year With Glimpse of Space-Time
NASA Mission News - Fermi - 2009 Oct 28

During its first year of operations, NASA's Fermi Gamma Ray Space Telescope mapped the extreme sky with unprecedented resolution and sensitivity.

It captured more than 1,000 discrete sources of gamma rays -- the highest-energy form of light. Capping these achievements was a measurement that provided rare experimental evidence about the very structure of space and time, unified as space-time in Einstein's theories.

"Physicists would like to replace Einstein's vision of gravity -- as expressed in his relativity theories -- with something that handles all fundamental forces," said Peter Michelson, principal investigator of Fermi's Large Area Telescope, or LAT, at Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif. "There are many ideas, but few ways to test them."

Many approaches to new theories of gravity picture space-time as having a shifting, frothy structure at physical scales trillions of times smaller than an electron. Some models predict that the foamy aspect of space-time will cause higher-energy gamma rays to move slightly more slowly than photons at lower energy.

Such a model would violate Einstein's edict that all electromagnetic radiation -- radio waves, infrared, visible light, X-rays and gamma rays -- travels through a vacuum at the same speed.

On May 10, 2009, Fermi and other satellites detected a so-called short gamma ray burst, designated GRB 090510. Astronomers think this type of explosion happens when neutron stars collide. Ground-based studies show the event took place in a galaxy 7.3 billion light-years away. Of the many gamma ray photons Fermi's LAT detected from the 2.1-second burst, two possessed energies differing by a million times. Yet after traveling some seven billion years, the pair arrived just nine-tenths of a second apart.

"This measurement eliminates any approach to a new theory of gravity that predicts a strong energy dependent change in the speed of light," Michelson said. "To one part in 100 million billion, these two photons traveled at the same speed. Einstein still rules."

Einstein still rules As if we could expect anything else with relativity being now the basis of our measurement units. What we really need is a new concept, not just alternative theory of the same thing. Perhaps it is still too early for that? Maybe we should wait till they start teaching relativity in schools?

makc wrote:Einstein still rules As if we could expect anything else with relativity being now the basis of our measurement units. What we really need is a new concept, not just alternative theory of the same thing. Perhaps it is still too early for that? Maybe we should wait till they start teaching relativity in schools?

Or to when Einstein's love for imagination is recognized, as he recognized it, as the most important scientific tool.

HEAPOW: The Great Photon Race (2009 Nov 02)

At least according to Einstein, the speed of light in vacuum is the ultimate speed limit. Nothing can go faster (though light can go slower, at least through certain materials). But does all light travel at the same speed in vacuum? According to certain theories near the Planck length, (which is incredibly tiny - about 100 billion billion times smaller than the size of the proton) our normal notions of space and time break down, and spacetime may become "foamy". Some theories predict that this spacetime foam might cause higher-energy gamma rays to move more slowly than lower-energy photons. The first test of this effect was made recently by the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope. On May 10, 2009 Fermi observed a Gamma-ray burst with its two instruments, the Gamma-ray Burst Monitor and the Large Area Telescope, measuring the arrival times of photons which spanned over a factor of a million in wavelength. This "race" is shown in the artist impression above. Despite this enormous difference in wavelength, and despite the fact that the photons from this particular burst traveled over 7.3 billion light-years, the photon arrival times were nearly identical. To paraphrase Einstein, 186,000 miles per second - it's not just a good idea, it's the law. No matter what your wavelength, apparently.

Fermi Telescope Caps First Year With Glimpse of Space-Time

bystander wrote:HEAPOW: 2009 Nov 2 - The Great Photon Race

At least according to Einstein, the speed of light in vacuum is the ultimate speed limit. But does all light travel at the same speed in vacuum?

While my question does not really concern light or photons, it does concern the speed of light as the fastest speed. My question is, "Which is faster, light or no-light"? Could it be wrong to think that no-light is fastest of all because it is already there, everywhere? I hope this is at least useful in a way that asks us to look at things/validate perspective in a new way as mishkin suggests.

At least according to Einstein, the speed of light in vacuum is the ultimate speed limit. But does all light travel at the same speed in vacuum?

While my question does not really concern light or photons, it does concern the speed of light as the fastest speed. My question is, "Which is faster, light or no-light"? Could it be wrong to think that no-light is fastest of all because it is already there, everywhere? I hope this is at least useful in a way that asks us to look at things/validate perspective in a new way as mishkin suggests.

According to Special Relativity, c is the ultimate speed. However, this is not the case in General Relativity which talks about the properties of space itself. So, in a sense, "no light" is faster, if you consider 'no light' to be space and in big bang theory, space expands at a speed faster than c.

~~_/)on wrote:

bystander wrote:HEAPOW: 2009 Nov 2 - The Great Photon Race

At least according to Einstein, the speed of light in vacuum is the ultimate speed limit. But does all light travel at the same speed in vacuum?

While my question does not really concern light or photons, it does concern the speed of light as the fastest speed. My question is, "Which is faster, light or no-light"? Could it be wrong to think that no-light is fastest of all because it is already there, everywhere? I hope this is at least useful in a way that asks us to look at things/validate perspective in a new way as mishkin suggests.

Wow! This Speed of No-light idea is just too exciting to remain silent. Speed of No light can be factored into the 'accountability' process of understanding non-locality. Thank you VERY much to "~~_)on and Canuck 100. What brilliant minds!

unohu wrote:

canuck100 wrote:

~~_/)on wrote: While my question does not really concern light or photons, it does concern the speed of light as the fastest speed. My question is, "Which is faster, light or no-light"? Could it be wrong to think that no-light is fastest of all because it is already there, everywhere? I hope this is at least useful in a way that asks us to look at things/validate perspective in a new way as mishkin suggests.

According to Special Relativity, c is the ultimate speed. However, this is not the case in General Relativity which talks about the properties of space itself. So, in a sense, "no light" is faster, if you consider 'no light' to be space and in big bang theory, space expands at a speed faster than c.

Wow! This Speed of No-light idea is just too exciting to remain silent. Speed of No light can be factored into the 'accountability' process of understanding non-locality. Thank you VERY much to "~~_)on and Canuck 100. What brilliant minds!

No-light is being shed here. Would someone please do a mercy death on this thread.

neufer wrote: No-light is being shed here. Would someone please do a mercy death on this thread.

Neufer .. with your brilliance you can't accept the reality and implications of no-light? I am saddened. The existance and speed of no-light is among the top three most exciting and brilliant concepts seen on this forum .. perhaps the most brilliant.

~~_/)on wrote:While my question does not really concern light or photons, it does concern the speed of light as the fastest speed. My question is, "Which is faster, light or no-light"? Could it be wrong to think that no-light is fastest of all because it is already there, everywhere? I hope this is at least useful in a way that asks us to look at things/validate perspective in a new way as mishkin suggests.

Is this what they teach at the Maine Maritime Academy? This is extremely worrisome.

Isn't this kind of like saying that you can throw a 'no-apple' faster than an apple? The absence of a thing isn't a thing itself...

Besides, there's no such thing as no-light. Thanks to the Uncertainty Principle, there's light everywhere.

bystander wrote:HEAPOW: 2009 Nov 2 - The Great Photon Race

At least according to Einstein, the speed of light in vacuum is the ultimate speed limit. Nothing can go faster (though light can go slower, at least through certain materials). But does all light travel at the same speed in vacuum? According to certain theories near the Planck length, (which is incredibly tiny - about 100 billion billion times smaller than the size of the proton) our normal notions of space and time break down, and spacetime may become "foamy". Some theories predict that this spacetime foam might cause higher-energy gamma rays to move more slowly than lower-energy photons. The first test of this effect was made recently by the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope. On May 10, 2009 Fermi observed a Gamma-ray burst with its two instruments, the Gamma-ray Burst Monitor and the Large Area Telescope, measuring the arrival times of photons which spanned over a factor of a million in wavelength. This "race" is shown in the artist impression above. Despite this enormous difference in wavelength, and despite the fact that the photons from this particular burst traveled over 7.3 billion light-years, the photon arrival times were nearly identical. To paraphrase Einstein, 186,000 miles per second - it's not just a good idea, it's the law. No matter what your wavelength, apparently.

Neat Said.

The photon range, is only limited by the Black Hole Neutron star Emission.
The light outer frequency respond to Black hole torso traction.
When light gets weak in the end of the black hole gravity reach of resonance W Z dynamic.

It returns back, cause of cloud particle reflection.
First it is a neutron star, then it accellerates in particle fusion of UUD neutron with molten core wounds.
And accillerates in toros, around its own axis.
Electromagnetic radience is then radiated as a fix bond, a shell of the so called W boson wave.
The Neutron matter has to be very electricly active cause of big battery shifts.
It seems as it rotates it may throw extra electrons off ground mass, and double electrify the surface potential,
who is now in ionized state of + polarisation of electroMagnetic charge.
The planetary scale to bosons in atom active state.
W around the falling star, shrinking mass.
And Z nucleus polarisation on the planet surface.

The black Hole who is a very dense object, attracts matter in swirls of "falling" in trillions of human years.
This is the Gamma ray emission, while the further developed into super massive black hole constellations
Saggitarius B. 5. Engines of space matter.

The Atom is departed of components into elemental tearing ..
The big differances on the scales for the galactic mass clouds , the rotating star, and the atom itself.
The discrete layers of the Atom have high resistance to dissonans amd tearing. It needs heat to tear.
the matter revolts intil it finds a stabile rotation factor. Either the particles move
opposite pairs for max polarization Into elementary particles in great energy, like much like the LCH.
stripped of physical mass and continued as a reflection in energy wave transportation.
The resulting energy is a mathematical wave energy.
Whom in my view has a halftime, like all radiand objects, see Beryllium 83.
In cosmic molecular media it would deviate from experiments LHC
in cosmo dynamics, and real time refraction of multitude of stars.

The fact of existanse that Einstein predicted, in sun occlusion.
I cant see why, light can not move faster than its supposed constant C.

Radar Blue wrote:[hard to decipher]

Are you goofing on us, is it a terrible Google translation, or does that all mean something? Does it have anything to do with the subject? If so, please isolate your point from the word salad and say it plainly.

apodman wrote:

Radar Blue wrote:[hard to decipher]

Are you goofing on us, is it a terrible Google translation, or does that all mean something? Does it have anything to do with the subject? If so, please isolate your point from the word salad and say it plainly.

It looks a lot like machine generated pseudotext, except that usually the machine generated text has better grammar and spelling. Both appear equally empty of meaningful content, however.

Chris Peterson wrote:Both appear equally empty

Like my logical math professor told me, it would be silly for just one of them to be equally empty.

Radar Blue wrote:Location: Oslo

Where exactly is Oslo? At one time I was able to find it in CzechOSLOvakia, but they've since disbanded.

---

That's the end of this cornball episode. I promise.

apodman wrote:Where exactly is Oslo?

It's a small town in Minnesota.

apodman wrote:Where exactly is Oslo?

Chris Peterson wrote:It's a small town in Minnesota.

or Florida

bystander wrote: or Florida

Yes, I considered that. But the peculiar spelling and grammar struck me as more what I'd expect from a poorly educated Minnesotan than a poorly educated Floridian. Very different styles. I ruled out Norway, of course, because everybody there is well educated.

Also the capitol of Norway

BMAONE23 wrote:Also the capitol of Norway

No, the capitol of Norway is Stortingsbygningen (literally, the Parliament [of Norway] Building). It is located in Oslo, the capital of Norway.

Funny, I had it spelled correctly but it looked incorrect so I changed it

Chris Peterson wrote:... I ruled out Norway, of course, because everybody there is well educated.

Actually, the IP is Norway.

I never thought crackpots could come in so many variations. Is this some kind of new species?

geckzilla wrote:I never thought crackpots could come in so many variations.

I'm not quite sure to whom you're referring, but I represent that remark.

geckzilla wrote:Is this some kind of new species?

It's living proof that cosmic rays randomize DNA.

apodman wrote:

Radar Blue wrote:[hard to decipher]

Are you goofing on us.

What ... Can you not read ?
No, I had a glimpse of inspiration and saw a solution.
It is good to provoke, and that was somewhat my intention.
This is a blog and not a job appliance.

Crackpot.
Many theorists test their ideas for garbage.
Einstein regretted for not throwing in the red shift theory, in a earlier stage.
And all we wait for is a theory to prove, that convetional understanding is a goof.

What is conceptually wrong with the statement ?
The N and W boson forces.
I like to paint pictures and draw these in my mind.
Sometimes I tell stories.
I do admit, I have no formal higher training in physics.
But are increasingly entertained by the notion.
Am also new to the forum !

Cherio